Agenda item
Discussion around the other villages submitted sites
Minutes:
Taking us through Site Selection Methodology (SSM)
Cllr P Andrews stated that he intends not to spend a lot of time discussing this document and reiterated that Members are not looking to approve this document tonight.
ML briefly explained the changes from the previous SSM. In summary, there have been few changes and the document serves the same purpose: it is a technical document that enables us to appraise sites and policies as to matters of sustainability. There are some changes and additions based on contextual and legislative changes; for instance, specific consideration of Biodiversity Net Gain.
Members’ discussion
Cllr Potter requested an explanation of the term Geodiversity.
RB explained that geodiversity relates to sites that make an important geological contribution in terms of understanding landscapes and scientific matters around geology. If a relevant site (for instance, an historic quarry) was proposed to have development on, the ability to consider such properties of the site could be lost; similarly to the approach to sites of archaeological importance.
Cllr P Andrews and Thackray discussed the lack of reference to ‘cycling distance’ in Stage 2 Assessment 1 of the SSM. It was suggested that accessibility should not solely be considered by walkable distances and/or people’s ability to walk. Transdev are going to provide Cllr Thackray with the number of people that uses buses.
Cllr Potter ask for clarity in relation to assessing flood risk, and felt that – given climate change moving forward – perhaps the flood risk checks should be more tight.
ML confirmed that the approach to assessing flood risk is more stringent now than in the previous SSM, further to consultation with the Environment Agency.
Cllr Thackray raised concerns regarding the Environment Agency and flood zones. It was suggested that flood maps keep changing and smaller settlements are modelled from unrelated town patterns.
Cllr Thackray also noted that he would like to see the full Local Plan being amended, not just a partial review.
Cllr Goodrick raised concerns that there would not be time to rewrite the plan before we go into LGR.
Item 2 – Other Villages
Members were presented with a list of 46 ‘Other Villages’ (as per the current settlement hierarchy) in which we have received site submissions.
To provide a structure, Officers broadly categorised them as follows: Settlements with both a school and bus stop, Settlements with either a school or bus stop, Settlements with limited services; and Settlements with no services.
Rachael provided general overview of sites, Matt discussed the policy constraints, Lizzie ran through service and facilities and school catchments. Members then offered general commentary about the settlements and some sites.
It was noted that – regarding school catchments – parental preference and school popularity is an additional determiner of where children go to school, beyond the basic catchment maps.
Members’ comments
Members discussed school capacity and some agreed that capacity within schools is something that is ever changing and sometimes difficult to predict. Bus service is another consideration point. School popularity can change so quickly, and is reliant on the senior management team within the Council. It was also suggested that bus stops should be taken into account. However, some Members felt it was important not to make a decision based on school selection and bus routes at the moment.
There was a Member suggestion that there should be a bigger push on affordable housing – especially for young families with young children. Members also discussed how consideration should not just be given to housing supply, but housing demand too. It was felt that affordable housing is largely not available to the people that actually need it.
Members were keen to understand the nature of the site submissions, but understood that further site assessment work would need to be undertaken before they would be in a position to make decisions on sites.
Members were also advised that, in time, composite maps would be prepared to show the sites in greater context.
It was agreed that the purpose of the Item was for an initial look at the sites and an opportunity to capture comments from Members and Officers.
Settlements Presentation
Sand Hutton
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites outside development limits and conservation area other than the accesses of Sites 233 and 249.
Site 233 is adjacent to Scheduled Ancient Monument and Visually Important Undeveloped Area.
Site 249 adjacent to Visually Important Undeveloped Area.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
63
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Primary School, Equestrian shop
School catchments
Primary: Sand Hutton
Secondary: Huntington
Discussion
Site 292 has planning history, concerns were raised regarding highways safety.
Settrington
Sites in relation to policy designations
Sites 123, 124 and 130 are all within the development limits. Site 151 is partially within the development limits. All sites are either within or immediately abutting the conservation area. Sites 131 and 151 are within close proximity of Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Everything east and south-east of the village is within the Wolds AHLV; Sites 272, 273 and 274 fall within this designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
63
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Primary School, Sports field
School catchments
Primary: Settrington
Secondary: Norton
Discussion
Comments about how the school is currently over-subscribed.
Terrington
Sites in relation to policy designations
Both sites are outside but immediately abutting development limits and conservation area. Terrington is surrounded by the Howardian Hills AONB and so the sites fall within this designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
34
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Primary School, Village Shop, Tea room, Post Office, Surgery, Sports field, Cafe
School catchments
Primary: Terrington
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Cllr Thackray queried as to why it wasn’t previously designated as a service village. RB responded by suggesting it may not have had a regular bus service or shop. Cllr Thackray confirmed that it did have a shop.
Welburn
Sites in relation to policy designations
The site is not in close proximity to the development limits or conservation area. It is within the Howardian Hills AONB designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
100
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Primary School, Pub, Café
School catchments
Primary: Welburn
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Concerns that the site is distanced from the village
Air quality concerns from increased traffic on the A64 as well as the highway safety in the area.
There could be positives from it being located so close to the A64.
It being in walking distance to Welburn services; presenting affordable housing possibilities, as well as the potential for interesting architecture.
West Heslerton
Sites in relation to policy designations
Sites 214 and 215 are within the village development limits but all others are outside of it. The village is surrounded by the Wolds AHLV, therefore all other submissions fall within this designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
130
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Primary School, Pub, Sports club, Petrol station
School catchments
Primary: West Heslerton
Secondary: Norton
Discussion
Queries were raised as to why West Heslerton was not already established as a service village.
RB responded to suggest that facilities in the village may have changed over time (it also did not have a shop), further work will be undertaken and Members will be in apposition to make choices about what villages could be termed ‘service villages’
Comments were raised that we should consider removing the idea of ‘service villages’ and simply have ‘Ryedale villages’.
Allerston
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites are outside the village development limits aside from the section of Site 54 closest to Main Street. All sites are at least partially within the conservation area. There is a scheduled ancient monument to the north of the village.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
17
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Pub
School catchments
Primary: Thornton Dale
Secondary: Lady Lumley’s
Discussion
A discussion was had around one of the smaller sites as to whether or not it should be in development limits, and treated as an infill site.
Appleton Le Street
Sites in relation to policy designations
Aside from a section of Site 58, all sites are outside development limits. Site 168 surrounds a scheduled ancient monument. The Howardian Hills AONB is south of the village but none of the sites fall within that designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
119
Services
Bus stop, Church
School catchments
Primary: Amotherby
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Concerns were raised as to the scale of the site submissions.
Concerns were expressed about the character of the villages along the B1257 being negatively impacted by the scale of potential development resulting in coalescence.
Comments were raised about the implications of the development of one of the sites and what this would mean for the public house.
Broughton
Sites in relation to policy designations
The single site is outside but immediately abutting the development limits. It is not affected by any other designations.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
Unspecified. 30dph amount: 86
Services
Bus stop
School catchments
Primary: Amotherby
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Members discussed the scale of the site submissions and their proximity to Malton.
Bulmer
Sites in relation to policy designations
The single site is immediately west of the village development limits and conservation area and is within the Howardian Hills AONB designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
5
Services
Bus stop, Church
School catchments
Primary: Welburn
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Concerns about the site’s proximity to Bulmer Bank and the possible steepness of the site. Additionally, stated concerns regarding highways access into and out of the site.
RB commented that there was still a short distance between the site and the main gradient of Bulmer Bank, but stated that we would seek the views of the highway authority.
Claxton
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites are situated outside the development limits aside from the access to site 246. All sites are outside the conservation area.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
275
Services
Bus stop
School catchments
Primary: Sand Hutton
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Concerns were raised about the scale of the submissions at the village.
It is a mile away from Sand Hutton.
There was some support for some development.
Ce should not dismiss all development in villages without certain services, because creative and organic development can enhance the vibrancy and sustainability of places. Made the example of village halls becoming better occupied with more houses in a village, or a pop-up pub.
Crambe
Sites in relation to policy designations
Both sites are outside the development limits and are within the Howardian Hills AONB designation. Site 116 is immediately adjacent to a Visually Important Undeveloped Area (town green).
Total cumulative yield from submissions
4
Services
Bus stop, Church
School catchments
Primary: Welburn
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
No specific concerns were raised regarding the submissions.
Ebberston
Sites in relation to policy designations
The single site is outside but immediately abutting the development limits and falls in an area of the village which is not covered by the Fringe of the Moors AHLV designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
10
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Pub, Sports Field
School catchments
Primary: Thornton Dale
Secondary: Lady Lumley’s
Discussion
A second hand car dealership was discussed as to whether it represented a service in the village in the context of service village designation.
Flaxton
Sites in relation to policy designations
Both sites are outside the development limits and both are outside but immediately abutting the conservation area. Site 72 is in close proximity to a designated site – The Crofts Site of Important Nature Conservation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions:
90
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Pre-school, Pub (currently closed)
School catchments
Primary: Sand Hutton
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Members considered the relative position of the sites and considered that Site 72 was distanced from the settlement and up a narrow track.
It was noted that the pub is currently closed and there is no indication of its reopening. Flaxton is a very old village with historic ownership matters to consider.
Members also considered the density of the site submissions.
Gate Helmsley
Sites in relation to policy designations
Both sites are outside but immediately abutting the development limits. The entire village, including the sites, is covered by the York Green Belt designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
50
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Pub (currently closed), Farm shop, Petrol station
School catchments
Primary: Sand Hutton
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Full Sutton prison is to be expanded in the near future, which has traffic implications in terms of increased visitations to the prison.
Concerns were raised as to the implications of the sites being in the York Green Belt.
Kirby Grindalythe and Duggleby
Sites in relation to policy designations
All Duggleby sites are outside the development limits and within the Wolds AHLV. There is a Scheduled Ancient Monument to the south of the village.
Both Kirby Grindalythe sites are outside the village development limits and within the Wolds AHLV. There is a Scheduled Ancient Monument to the west of the village.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
69
Services
School catchments
Primary: Luttons
Secondary: Norton College
Discussion
Concerns were raised over the scale and access of the sites along fast road with sharp bends
Kirby Misperton
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites are outside the development limits. Site 104 covers a playing field managed by Flamingo Land.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
96
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Pub, Post office, Flamingo Land-managed facilities
School catchments
Primary: Pickering Primaries
Secondary: Lady Lumley’s
Discussion
Members advised that a school bus accesses both Kirby Misperton and Amotherby.
Members suggested it is a mobile post office.
Concerns raised regarding impacts on neighbouring residences.
Discussions were had concerning on the site submissions being on laying field might be lost by allocating Site 104, with some discussion about its accessibility and management by Flamingo Land.
Cllrs Mason and Potter suggested that Flamingo Land used the ‘playing field’ as hireable football pitch space, rather than a typical community asset.
Cllr P Andrews raised concerns regarding Site 104 separating Flamingo Land with the adjacent cemetery. Cllr P Andrews also pointed out that the site has a bus stop with a regular bus service and 30-40 houses might be realistically accommodated within the village. However, 50+ houses might undermine the social integrity of the village.
Leavening
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites are outside the village development limits though sites 90 and 153 are immediately abutting. All sites are within the Wolds AHLV.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
70
Services
Bus stop, Church, Primary School, Pub
School catchments
Primary: Leavening
Secondary: Norton
Discussion
Cllr Goodrick outlined concerns regarding access to the village, pointing out that most accesses are single track lanes. Also pointed out uncertainties regards mains sewerage capacity and insufficient gas supply.
Cllr Mason pointed out that we should be considering alternatives to fossil fuels.
Cllr P Andrews suggested that Sites 90 or 153 might be appropriate for up to 20 houses and pointed out that additional development in the village could help fill school places at Leavening.
Middleton
Sites in relation to policy designations
The single site is outside the development limits but within the conservation area. It is proximal to a visually important undeveloped area surrounding St Andrew’s Church and is within the Fringe of the Moors AHLV.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
3
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall x2, Pub, Petrol station, Shop, Tea rooms
School catchments
Primary: Pickering Primaries
Secondary: Lady Lumley’s
Discussion
Cllr P Andrews stated that three houses in the one location as submitted wouldn’t be a problem.
Cllr Thackray suggested that Middleton could accommodate even more.
North Grimston
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites are outside the development limits though Site 102 is immediately abutting to the south. Sites 96, 98 and 100 are at least partially on land that has been designated as Visually Important Undeveloped Area. All sites are within the Wolds AHLV.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
58
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Pub
School catchments
Primary: Settrington
Secondary: Norton College
Discussion
Cllr Goodrick pointed out that there are currently approximately only 25 properties in the village and so there is a risk of overdevelopment. Also pointed out highways concerns, with two awkward bends in the village.
Cllr P Andrews suggested that 5-10 additional houses might be appropriate.
Potter Brompton
Sites in relation to policy designations
There are no policy designations in Potter Brompton other than the Wolds AHLV, which all sites fall within.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
40
Services
Bus stop, Cafe
School catchments
Primary: Sherburn
Secondary: Ebor Academy Filey
Discussion
Concerns were raised in relation to the cumulative site submissions, members felt it would represent a massive over-development of the village.
Cllr Thackray suggested the sites should be considered within the context of assessing the periphery and nearby villages.
Some members suggested that Ganton wasn’t actually that close by, complicated by it being accessed only by the A64. Cllr Potter echoed that it can be challenging to cross the A64 to head east, when emerging from a north-facing access.
Cllr P Andrews pointed out that the junction is now staggered to enable drivers to emerge more safely, and echoed Cllr Thackray’s comments that it would be useful to see how the site relates to the village of Ganton.
Scampston
Sites in relation to policy designations
All but one of the sites – Site 85 – are within the development limits. The site is proximal to the Registered Park and Garden designation associated with Scampston Hall and gardens.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
29
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Scampston Hall-managed facilities
School catchments
Primary: Rillington
Secondary: Norton
Discussion
Members stated that they didn’t feel there would be substantial issue with development at Scampston but that we should be aware of heritage impacts.
Cllr Thackray suggested that the village cannot take a lot of development but pointed out that some sites might be able to accommodate interesting contemporary architecture, citing the nearby visitor centre as an example.
Scagglethorpe
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites, aside from the most northern section of Site 229 are outside the development limits. Sites to the north and east of the village – Sites 148 and 229 – are within the Wolds AHLV.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
137
Services
Bus stop, Church, Village Hall, Pub
School catchments
Primary: Settrington
Secondary: Norton
Discussion
Members expressed concerns that Site 65 and 118 are quite divorced from the village, don’t have problems with the others. However other members felt Site 65 and 34 might be a good places to put development, they are behind tree lines on the A64.
Cllr P Andrews suggested that the number of houses was a concern; 20-30 would potentially be more suitable.
Wharram
Sites in relation to policy designations
Other than the most south-west section of Site 156, all sites are outside the development limits but are proximal or abutting. Site 156 is north of a Visually Important Undeveloped Area. All sites fall within the Wolds AHLV designation.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
94
Services
Bus stop, Church
School catchments
Primary: Settrington
Secondary: Norton
Discussion
Members expressed concerns regarding the cumulative submissions which would represent a massive over-development of the village. It was considered that the sites as submitted ultimately represent significantly more land than the development itself. Some Members did not support development at the village.
Whitwell
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites are outside the development limits, though 109, 112 and 114 are immediately abutting. Sites 115a/b/c are proximal to the parish boundary with Barton le Willows. The sites nearest to the village proper are all within the Howardian Hills AONB; the ones nearest to Barton le Willows are not.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
23
Services
Bus stop, Church
School catchments
Primary: Welburn
Secondary: Malton
Discussion
Cllr Goodrick raised concerns regarding Site 112 due to its proximity to a heritage asset and also made comments as to the safety of the A64. Though there are bus stops in the vicinity, to get the bus heading to York would require crossing the A64 in an area where it is still a 70mph speed limit. It was also pointed out that Site 114 would be very prominent in the landscape.
Wombleton
Sites in relation to policy designations
All sites are outside the development limits, however Site 2 is immediately abutting and is within the conservation area. Site 9 is proximal to an area of land designated for its biodiversity components.
Total cumulative yield from submissions
225
Services
Bus stop, Village Hall, Pub, Sports field
School catchments
Primary: Nawton
Secondary: Ryedale (Beadlam)
Discussion
Cllr Potter stated that Sites 9 and 291 bear no resemblance to the village.
A number of members all agreed that Site 2 looked appropriate for some development.
Members agreed to adjourn the remaining villages, to be discussed at the next LPWP meeting.
Supporting documents:
PDF 11 MB